VIDHYA VISWANATHAN versus KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 1164 · Decided: 22-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 1164 
VIDHYA VISWANATHAN 
v. 
KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 9036 of 20~4) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 · 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13(1)(ia) and 25 - Divorce 
C - On ground of cruelty - Mental cruelty - Divorce petition filed 
by respondent-husband dismissed by trial court - But allowed 
by High Court - Propriety - Held: Respondent-husband in his 
evidence narrated in detail, the incidents of alleged cruelty 
suffered by him - He was subjected to lengthy cross-
D examination but nothing came out which created doubt in his 
testimony - Appellant-wife denied allegations made by 
respondent-husband but in cross-examination she admitted 
that the marriage was not consummated - Not allowing a 
spouse for a Jong time, to have sexual intercourse by his or 
E her psrtner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts to mental 
cruelty to such spouse - Illustrations of mental cruelty 
enumerated by Supreme Court in Samar Ghosh case, viz. 
illustrations No. (viii) and (xii), support the view taken by the 
High Court that respondent-wife treated her husband with 
F mental cruelty - Divorce decree granted by High Court 
affirmed with further direction uls. 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act 
4 
G 
H 
that the respondent shall pay to the appellant Rs.40 /akhs as 
a /umpsum amount of permanent alimony - Family Courts 
Act, 1986 - s.19. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. On going through the evidence on record, 
it is clear that the husband (petitioner before the trial 
court), in his evidence has narrated in detail, the incidents 
1164 
VIDHYA VISWANATHAN v. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN 
1165 
of alleged cruelty suffered by him. P.W.1 (husband) was 
A 
subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing has 
come out which creates doubt in his testimony. [Para 9] 
[1168-H; 1169-A; 1171-G] 
2. The appellant had also filed her evidence before 
8 
the trial court, in the form of affidavit, and she also got 
herself cross-examined as D.W.1. She denied the 
allegations ma~e by her husband but in cross-
examination she admits that the marriage was. not 
consummated. [Para 1 O] [1171-H; 1172-A-B] 
c 
3. Not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have 
sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient 
reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. A 
Bench of Three Judges of this Court in Samar Ghosh 
case has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental 
D 
cruelty. The illustrations, No. (viii) .and (xii) given in Samar 
Ghosh case, support the view taken by the High Court 
in holding that in the present case the wife has treated 
her husband with mental cruelty. [Para 12) [1173-C-D] 
E 
Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511: 2007 
(4) SCR 428 and Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit (2006) 3 
SCC 778: 2006 (3) SCR 116 ·relied on. 
4. In the case at hand, there is no ground to interfere 
with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on 
F 
the ground of cruelty. However, the appellant, as stated 
by her, was doing a job before her marriage, and she has 
stated as D.W.1 that at present she is not doing any work. 
As such it is just and proper to direct the respondent to 
pay to the appellant (wife) one time lump sum amount of G 
alimony. In the facts and circumstances of the case 
keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a 
direction to the respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees 
forty lakhs only) as one time alimony to the appellant, 
would meet the ends of justice. [Para 14) [1176-D-F] 
H 
1166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
5. Tile decree of divorce granted by the High Court 
dissolvilng the marriage between the parties is 
accordi!1gly affirmed, with further direction under Section 
25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that the respondent 
shall pay to the appellant Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs 
8 only) as a lump sum amount of permanent alimony. [Para 
15] [1176-F -G] 
c 
Case Law Reference: 
2007 (4) SCR 428 
2006 (3) SCR 116 
Relied on 
Relied on· 
Para 12 
Para 13 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9036 
of 2014 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2012 of the. 
D High Court Of Judicature at Madras in CMA No.2862 of 2011. 
R. Balasubramanian, B. Karunakaran, S.Usha Reddy for 
the Appellant. 
Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Zoheb Hossain, Rauf Rahim for the 
E Respondent. 
The Judgment of the_Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C.PA~T, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is directed against the judgme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.